Anonymous wrote:Gergich is right here. Upzoning ignores the plenty of space available for more housing. Bieber wants to destroy certain neighborhoods. You can destroy current neighborhoods or you can improve neighborhoods that need new investment. Moreover, Bieber will simply drive people who want SFHs out of the area. The beauty of the DMV is that attractive options exist.

The idea that building more housing in certain neighborhoods is destroying them is one many people would disagree with!

Gergich is right here. Upzoning ignores the plenty of space available for more housing. Bieber wants to destroy certain neighborhoods. You can destroy current neighborhoods or you can improve neighborhoods that need new investment. Moreover, Bieber will simply drive people who want SFHs out of the area. The beauty of the DMV is that attractive options exist.

Didn’t DC just reduce the height limit RF-1 a few years ago?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because something is zoned for something doesn't mean that thing is ever going to be built there. "Exhaust the correct zoning" is not a thing that happens in real life.

If that is the logic, why the proposal to change zoning at all if the zoning doesn't mean the additional homes will be built?

Zoning allows something to happen. Will it happen if the zoning is changed to allow it? Maybe. Will it happen if the zoning is not changed to allow it? No.

So by that logic, just observe if the existing zoning capacity are being utilized before expanding it with new zoning changes. If existing capacity is plenty, what would even more capacity do?

Space is not fungible. More capacity would allow building in different places where there might be more factors encouraging new housing or making it financially viable than in the places that aren't currently "exhausted." Would you want to move to a new home that was mainly built where it was because it wasn't visible to existing residents, or because it was proactively chosen to be near transportation, work, etc? What if nothing is built because nothing is for sale in the hypothetically already zoned areas?

I am a person who consistently values location over space for housing, so you might answer this question differently, but the point is that location matters for both developers and consumers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because something is zoned for something doesn't mean that thing is ever going to be built there. "Exhaust the correct zoning" is not a thing that happens in real life.

If that is the logic, why the proposal to change zoning at all if the zoning doesn't mean the additional homes will be built?

Zoning allows something to happen. Will it happen if the zoning is changed to allow it? Maybe. Will it happen if the zoning is not changed to allow it? No.

So by that logic, just observe if the existing zoning capacity are being utilized before expanding it with new zoning changes. If existing capacity is plenty, what would even more capacity do?

Anonymous wrote:We don’t have a housing shortage. We have a housing market that is charging too much.

You don’t fix this by rezoning. You fix it by increased regulation and tax pressure on landlords.

As a landlord, I wish I can just "charge too much". Why have five rentals charging 2000 each when I can just charge one renter 10,000 a month? That would be magical. Hey, are you looking for a place to rent?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because something is zoned for something doesn't mean that thing is ever going to be built there. "Exhaust the correct zoning" is not a thing that happens in real life.

If that is the logic, why the proposal to change zoning at all if the zoning doesn't mean the additional homes will be built?

Zoning allows something to happen. Will it happen if the zoning is changed to allow it? Maybe. Will it happen if the zoning is not changed to allow it? No.

Anonymous wrote:Just because something is zoned for something doesn't mean that thing is ever going to be built there. "Exhaust the correct zoning" is not a thing that happens in real life.

If that is the logic, why the proposal to change zoning at all if the zoning doesn't mean the additional homes will be built?

Anonymous wrote:First, given that we have a housing shortage. If you don’t believe that there’s a housing shortage, this question isn’t fair you.

Let’s say that two opposing politicians have different views on the role of zoning in the effort to build more housing. At the risk of polarizing people, let’s not use their real names and call them Gergich and Bieber.

Mr. Bieber believes that we need to upzone in order to increase the capacity for more housing. Mr. Gergich meanwhile believes that we already have the zoning, but we need to actually build what is already zoned for. Supporters of Mr. Bieber say that not everything that is zoned for works out getting built, and was not able to explain why. That being said, is it necessarily sound planning policy to exhaust every theoretically zoned piece of land before readjusting zoning?

Generally, I’m not in favor of blanket upzoning and building now and figuring it all out later, and the Gergich version proposes that everything that is zoned for is already structurally figured out. But we do need more housing. I just wonder if existing theoretical zoning capacity is the reason why we don’t have it.

Figuring all WHAT out later?

The Gergich version basically says: we don't need to allow Builder A to build Project X, because Builder B is already approved for Project Y (it's just that Builder B has no actual plans to actually build Project Y any time soon, if ever).

Mind you, I'd be happy with a reform that says you have to build within 5 years or your approval expires.

Meanwhile, obviously not everything allowed under zoning actually gets built. What explanation is needed here?

I am not a supporter of Mr. Bieber.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t have a housing shortage. We have a housing market that is charging too much.

You don’t fix this by rezoning. You fix it by increased regulation and tax pressure on landlords.

Umm no you don't in fact what you are suggesting would not help at all and would probably make things worse when it comes to both supply and prices. But wealthy homeowners would be protected.

And what does "tax pressure on landlords" even mean?

+1. What exactly would tax pressure do? Seems like we need to decrease the tax burden on landlords so they’re more likely to rent their units legally and for lower rents.

Anonymous wrote:We don’t have a housing shortage. We have a housing market that is charging too much.

You don’t fix this by rezoning. You fix it by increased regulation and tax pressure on landlords.

Umm no you don't in fact what you are suggesting would not help at all and would probably make things worse when it comes to both supply and prices. But wealthy homeowners would be protected.

And what does "tax pressure on landlords" even mean?

We don’t have a housing shortage. We have a housing market that is charging too much.

You don’t fix this by rezoning. You fix it by increased regulation and tax pressure on landlords.

Just because something is zoned for something doesn't mean that thing is ever going to be built there. "Exhaust the correct zoning" is not a thing that happens in real life.

Anonymous wrote:First, given that we have a housing shortage. If you don’t believe that there’s a housing shortage, this question isn’t fair you.

Let’s say that two opposing politicians have different views on the role of zoning in the effort to build more housing. At the risk of polarizing people, let’s not use their real names and call them Gergich and Bieber.

Mr. Bieber believes that we need to upzone in order to increase the capacity for more housing. Mr. Gergich meanwhile believes that we already have the zoning, but we need to actually build what is already zoned for. Supporters of Mr. Bieber say that not everything that is zoned for works out getting built, and was not able to explain why. That being said, is it necessarily sound planning policy to exhaust every theoretically zoned piece of land before readjusting zoning?

Generally, I’m not in favor of blanket upzoning and building now and figuring it all out later, and the Gergich version proposes that everything that is zoned for is already structurally figured out. But we do need more housing. I just wonder if existing theoretical zoning capacity is the reason why we don’t have it.

No, because current zoning may not provide economically viable, or "best" solutions. changing zoning to allow for more wlll encourage better opportunities.

First, given that we have a housing shortage. If you don’t believe that there’s a housing shortage, this question isn’t fair you.

Let’s say that two opposing politicians have different views on the role of zoning in the effort to build more housing. At the risk of polarizing people, let’s not use their real names and call them Gergich and Bieber.

Mr. Bieber believes that we need to upzone in order to increase the capacity for more housing. Mr. Gergich meanwhile believes that we already have the zoning, but we need to actually build what is already zoned for. Supporters of Mr. Bieber say that not everything that is zoned for works out getting built, and was not able to explain why. That being said, is it necessarily sound planning policy to exhaust every theoretically zoned piece of land before readjusting zoning?

Generally, I’m not in favor of blanket upzoning and building now and figuring it all out later, and the Gergich version proposes that everything that is zoned for is already structurally figured out. But we do need more housing. I just wonder if existing theoretical zoning capacity is the reason why we don’t have it.